Letter to the New York Times, Not Published

[gipper]

I dashed off this email to the Times, prompted by the posting here of their editorial counseling a fairly quick withdrawal, and the comments here that followed. Any thoughts?

*****

Perhaps I am bedazzled by the power of inertia, but I yet harbor hopes that a more gradual, benchmark-achieving withdrawal is far preferable to the thoughtful but distressing call you issued yesterday for withdrawal planning to begin now.
 
You do not -- cannot -- rule out a whole host of negative, even downright evil consequences flowing from a decision to start the withdrawal process now. To the contrary, on at least three fronts held in check, more or less, by a stasis of troop strength -- a more virulent civil war, which could degenerate into genocide; a failed state, which could leave yawning gaps for terrorist entrenchment; and, because of the two just mentioned, a wider, regional belligerency -- we risk acute exacerbation from your proposal.
 
But, as you say, let the conversation begin in earnest. I am certainly open to the possibility that your reporters' sources may be providing equal or superior "intelligence" compared to the version the military is capable of getting to us through channels. Yet, as I now understand your argument, I don't have to defer to superior information. My present reservations appear to be chiefly if not entirely matters of choice of values, or toleration of risks jeopardizing those values.

[Mucho]

I dashed off this email to the Times, prompted by the posting here of their editorial counseling a fairly quick withdrawal, and the comments here that followed. Any thoughts?

*****

Perhaps I am bedazzled by the power of inertia, but I yet harbor hopes that a more gradual, benchmark-achieving withdrawal is far preferable to the thoughtful but distressing call you issued yesterday for withdrawal planning to begin now.
 
You do not -- cannot -- rule out a whole host of negative, even downright evil consequences flowing from a decision to start the withdrawal process now. To the contrary, on at least three fronts held in check, more or less, by a stasis of troop strength -- a more virulent civil war, which could degenerate into genocide; a failed state, which could leave yawning gaps for terrorist entrenchment; and, because of the two just mentioned, a wider, regional belligerency -- we risk acute exacerbation from your proposal.
 
But, as you say, let the conversation begin in earnest. I am certainly open to the possibility that your reporters' sources may be providing equal or superior "intelligence" compared to the version the military is capable of getting to us through channels. Yet, as I now understand your argument, I don't have to defer to superior information. My present reservations appear to be chiefly if not entirely matters of choice of values, or toleration of risks jeopardizing those values.

Well that says plenty of nothing obscurely enough to not be worth a shit. Keep up the good work, Dome.

[Michael Tee]

<<Any thoughts?>.

Yeah, you don't really know what would happen if the U.S. withdrew and you don't really know what'll happen if they stay on.  So why did you assign a bad outcome to leaving and not an equally bad outcome to staying?

It's almost as if you want to demonstrate independent thought by not going along through primitive herd instinct but in the end you decide (but rationally and independently) to go along with the herd.

The Hamlet of East Orange indeed.

[Plane]

   I agree with you in several respects Gipper, but I would have included that there is no point in modest goals , aim high and a shortfall is still pretty good shooting.

    Iraq in the firm controll of its own people should be the stated and the actual goal,every step made in the right direction should be reinforced with encouragement or assistance.

    If getting out of the problem is the only goal we could have done so immediately after the fall of Baghdad with impunity, but the power vacuum would be filled with the most ruthless and shortsighted sort very dependably.

     I think we invaded Iraq for our own reasons , but we have stayed there for the benefit of the people there.

[Lanya]

The next benchmark, Pvt. Jones' face melted.
The one after that, 32 soldiers had lost either an arm or a leg or both.
The one after that, 155 soldiers had traumatic brain injuries. 
And the next one, 1000 soldiers had PTSD.

Those  kinds of benchmarks I can do without. 

[BT]

The next benchmark, Pvt. Jones' face melted.
The one after that, 32 soldiers had lost either an arm or a leg or both.
The one after that, 155 soldiers had traumatic brain injuries. 
And the next one, 1000 soldiers had PTSD.

Such is the nature of war

[gipper]

My core concern is to prevent an "exaggerated," "more virulent" slaughter of innocent Iraqis, a goal I suggest as a national moral imperative for the US, regardless of the clusterfuck and who's to blame for it, that created the mess in the first place. Further, not only would prevention of such a catastrophe be a moral good unto itself, it would go far in geo-political terms in restoring the character of the US in world eyes as a benevolent leader, and in providing the dividends that would bring for world peace.

[Plane]

Could the USA allow or foster the development of a severe , draconion or extremely powerfull police force in Iraq?

The Iriqui were dealing with a large police force under Saddam , and they were repressed and intimidated , but the trains ran on time and terrorism was a seldom occurance.

If we allow or assist the formation of a police state ,the Iriqui common man will be right back where he started and to him all of the noise and fury of the past few years will have accomplished nothing.

But if the police are not pretty strong , they will not round up  the violent element that is causeing twenty to an hundred deaths a day.

If Iraq is strictly run and repressive can that be made temporary?
If the Law in Iraq is pretty liberal will it have any means to succeed?